• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Mr. Randi's disappearing!

BillyJoe

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Aug 4, 2001
Messages
12,531
Randi said that he now weighs 136 pounds.
That converts to 62 kilograms.
I remember that his height is 5 foot 5 inches.
That converts to 165 centimeters.

Your weight in kilograms should be your height in centimeters minus 100.
Hence Randi's expected weight is 65 kilograms.
That's 3 kilograms missing already!

When will he disappear?


a concerned,
BillyJoe
(5 foot 5 inches and 165 kilograms and I'm stayin' right here!)
 
He's been eating less and exercising! Working out to help his recovery! He's a lean mean psycho-babble busting machine!

We'll make sure he stuffs himself on the cruise...

-AH.
 
The three missing kilograms were really a thin, elongated parallelogram between the puzzle pieces, like this: [diagram 1 goes here] When the pieces are assembled this way [diagram 2 goes here] there is no space between them, and so the three kilograms seem to have vanished.

I've got an even better one involving a disappearing leprechaun. =^_^=
 
He's been eating less and exercising! Working out to help his recovery! He's a lean mean psycho-babble busting machine!

We'll make sure he stuffs himself on the cruise...

-AH.

Oh no, he's going straight to the rock climbing wall!
 
...Your weight in kilograms should be your height in centimeters minus 100...

Interesting; I've never heard of this before. And yet, it does seem to work for me and for a couple of other people for whom I've calculated it. I suspect it's like BMI that works alright for average people, but not for those at extremes of height, width, depth (or amazingness).

Of course, it could also be that the weight that you "should be" is somewhat subjective. I believe being the weight this says I should be, would give me a BMI of about 26.

Where did this idea come from BillyJoe?
 
Interesting; I've never heard of this before. And yet, it does seem to work for me and for a couple of other people for whom I've calculated it. I suspect it's like BMI that works alright for average people, but not for those at extremes of height, width, depth (or amazingness).

Of course, it could also be that the weight that you "should be" is somewhat subjective. I believe being the weight this says I should be, would give me a BMI of about 26.

Where did this idea come from BillyJoe?

It's merely a rough guide, of course, but it works pretty well for a normal range of height. From about 160-200cm. Naturally, it wouldn't work too well with a midget only 105 cm tall (or less...)

I don't know where the idea come from, but I am certain that I am one of those people who's actually watched people's height and bodyweight and made this rough connection myself, without reading it elsewhere. (Of course, we all know about memories and how they can be faulty.) I think that this "discovery" has been done plenty of times separately throughout the history of the metric measurement system.

And naturally it's a subjective guideline too, I'm not denying it. But it somehow does the trick well enough, so I'm sticking to it.
 
Randi's definitely shorter than 1.65m, so it all works out fine.
No, I remember, he said he was 5 foot 5 inches. I remember because it is my height as well. I remember thinking that, if we ever met, I could go up right to him and look him straight in the eyes.
Unlike most people.:D
 
That's Randy, not Randi.

ETA: erm... no it's not. Richard. Randy's the guy from BTO. d'oh. I blame Lisa...
 
Last edited:
Well that's just great isn't it? Randi's disappearing and all you can do is sit around and joke about it. :mad:
 
It's true, if you look at the forum header all that appears to be left of him is a pair of eyes!!
 
That's not proof! It has always been like that.

Just checked. There is more of him that before! He is in fact GROWING.

Darat - rename this thread please into Mr Randi is growing.
 

Back
Top Bottom